Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell]
This page requires JavaScript
22
which the employment of the uncorrected totals would have
yielded.
I have shewn in former reports that the population of the
parish of Camberwell has (like that of the other peripheral
parishes of London) increased much more rapidly than the
population of the more central districts, much more rapidly
than the population of the metropolis taken as a whole, much
more rapidly even than the population of the Southern group
of districts; that no comparison of Camberwell with the rest of
London can be fair unless the relative rates of increase be taken
into the account; and that the increase of Camberwell, and still
more the increase of its sub-districts, are liable to fluctuations
which defy all mathematical rules, and render any estimates of
their population far less trustworthy than the estimates made
for more extensive and populous areas.
Now the population of Camberwell was, in April, 1861,
71,488, and it had increased during the previous ten years by
the addition of 16,821 persons, or 30.77 per cent. The increase
for London during the same period had been 18.7 per cent.
What then was the mean average population of Camberwell
during 1803? or (what is always taken to represent the same
thing) what was its population in the middle of the year?
If Camberwell had increased since April, 1801, at the same rate
as London itself is assumed to have increased, its population
at the end of June, 1863, would have amounted to 74,048. If
it had increased at the same rate as the Southern group of
districts increased between 1851 and 1861 (viz. at 2.28 percent.
per annum), its population would have amounted to about
75,155 If it had increased at the same geometrical rate at
which it increased during the last decenniad, its population
would have amounted to not much less than 76,437.*
* I have not performed the calculation leading to this result quite